06/08/2026
“The rents are too damn low.”
I know that sounds insane during a housing crisis.
But hear me out.
Years ago, I served on the Mayor’s Housing Quality Task Force. After reviewing the local housing data, I realized something uncomfortable:
You cannot talk seriously about housing quality without talking seriously about rising incomes.
Someone challenged me and said:
“Well, if people make more money, rents will just go up.”
My response?
“Yes. That’s the point.”
Not because I want people squeezed.
Because I want housing to actually work.
Here’s the math:
If every Rochester household earned $10,000 more per year, that’s roughly $960M in new household income.
If 30% went toward housing, that’s $250/month more per household.
Citywide, that’s about $288M/year in new housing affordability.
At a 7% cap rate, that supports roughly $4.1B in housing value.
At $330k/unit, that could pencil approximately 12,000 new housing units.
Without subsidy.
And the remaining $7,000/year per household?
That’s $672M in added spending capacity.
If half gets spent locally, that’s $336M flowing into local businesses.
At 8% sales tax, that’s nearly $27M/year in new sales tax revenue.
This is why housing policy is income policy.
If incomes are too low, rents feel too high to tenants — while still being too low to support new construction, renovations, maintenance, taxes, insurance, and reinvestment.
That’s the contradiction nobody wants to talk about.
The same rent can be unaffordable to the tenant and still not enough to make housing financially viable.
The strongest housing subsidy isn’t always another government program.
Sometimes it’s a better paycheck.